[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231206105806.e4A02OHA@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:58:06 +0100
From: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 27/32] timers: Check if timers base is handled already
On 2023-12-01 10:26:49 [+0100], Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Due to the conversion of the NOHZ timer placement to a pull at expiry
> time model, the per CPU timer bases with non pinned timers are no
> longer handled only by the local CPU. In case a remote CPU already
> expires the non pinned timers base of the local cpu, nothing more
CPU
so it is consistent with the other.
> needs to be done by the local CPU. A check at the begin of the expire
> timers routine is required, because timer base lock is dropped before
> executing the timer callback function.
>
> This is a preparatory work, but has no functional impact right now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists